A couple of days ago, I wrote about the deleterious effects of political consensus on energy policy. A good example of this has emerged today.
According to Politics Home, Luciana Berger and Caroline Lucas are seeking an amendment to the Green Deal to impose a target for domestic
carbon reduction.
A number of salient points emerge from this. First, it’s a fine instance of the obsession with targets; itself an indication that this area of policy is largely a top down initiative – driven by targets, taxes and penalties. The Green Deal, as it currently stands, is one of the few areas that put incentive before directive. The idea was to ‘nudge’ consumers into improving domestic energy efficiency. The deal would function by encouraging people to take out loans to insulate their homes and then repay the borrowing with the money saved by reduced energy bills.
However, the major objection to this amendment is that it does not address the Green Deal’s weaknesses. Energy experts fear that the likelihood is that only the well-off would benefit. Landlords are unlikely to bother with loans and expensive insulation, which would disadvantage the poor, especially as energy bills are set to double over the next decade, which is a problem in itself if loans are to be repaid with the savings from supposedly lower energy bills. There’s also a worry that those on low incomes will not take the risk of a loan in the first place. Imposing an arbitrary target is unlikely to ally those worries. Numb consensus is leading politicians ask the wrong questions.
Comments